The GeForce 320M compared to the 9600

Bobmarine

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Apr 13, 2010
3
0
Hi all,

I was just wondering how much closer the new 13" MBP's graphics come to the old 15"'s graphics, mainly because I have seen an impressive video of the "newly old" 15" MBP playing the Starcraft 2 beta beautifully.

Is the 320M far from the 9600, or does it kick just a tiny bit of ass? Because I have waited since early december for a MBP 13" update, because I hoped an updated version would be able to run SC2 respectfully.

So basically, I am not only asking about the difference between the two gfx cards, I am also wondering if the 13" MBP should have the power to run SC2 without the graphics turned so low you can't tell the difference between Warcraft 3 and SC2.

Thanks
 

chrmjenkins

macrumors 603
Oct 29, 2007
5,313
154
CA
No benchmarks for the 13" yet. This is the first laptop to use the 320. You'll have to wait a bit.
 

twitchtwice

macrumors member
Mar 19, 2010
81
0
yes. the op is asking about the 320m not the 330gt of the 15 and 17. id like to know this as well.
 

Yoh

macrumors member
Apr 13, 2010
61
0
OP: Im play SC2 Beta aswell and Im concerned about the graphics aswell... Im wondering what settings you play yours on for the MPB 15''? Mid? High? Ultraaaa?

Also, since the 320M doesnt have dedicated graphics, is there any chance that it will match up to the other ones that DO have them? Gaming-wise? Does the benchmarks take that into account? (i.e. Card A scores XXXX and Card B scores XXXX, card B has dedicated memory and card A doesnt... do they still perform the same?)
 

Patrick J

macrumors 65816
Mar 12, 2009
1,434
7
Oporto, Portugal
Benchmark, depending on the test, usually returns a number. Higher means better.

If the card performs better with or without dedicated memory, that is fine, but the benchmarker doesn't really care. What matters is the final result.
 

Cali3350

macrumors regular
Feb 16, 2009
249
0
From what I understand its a downclocked version of the 330M due to heat concerns.

It should perform similarly, and if your willing to overlock it should be better.
 

Yoh

macrumors member
Apr 13, 2010
61
0
but I dont see them specifying the amount of dedicated memory (notebookcheck) or am I just missing it
 

mikeo007

macrumors 65816
Mar 18, 2010
1,371
121
but I dont see them specifying the amount of dedicated memory (notebookcheck) or am I just missing it
The 320m shares system memory. It's very similar to the 9400m, although it does perform better. It's not very close to the performance of the 9600m gt though.
 

Yoh

macrumors member
Apr 13, 2010
61
0
I mean i dont see the memory amount even on the ones that have dedicated...
 

Cali3350

macrumors regular
Feb 16, 2009
249
0
The 320m shares system memory. It's very similar to the 9400m, although it does perform better. It's not very close to the performance of the 9600m gt though.
I disagree, we cant say that yet.
Assuming the 320M DOES offer 48 shader cores then in calculation intensive arenas it should be very competitive to the 9600M. Memory bandwidth will be the biggest issue.
 

dusk007

macrumors 68040
Dec 5, 2009
3,383
61
Jes memory bandwidth and its impact is the big unknown. Shading performance should be quite decent and one might also be able to overclock a little.
upgrading RAM to DDR3 1333 might help the 13" here. I guess Apple uses 1066.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Computer-Games-on-Laptop-Graphic-Cards.13849.0.html

Just restrict to Intel HD, 9300M G(same as 9400M), 310M, two 320M guesses, 9600M GT and 330M. Then you can see the best guess one can make now as to how it performs and what you can play.

I think SC2 should work at least I heard it was designed to work on less powerful hardware too.
 

weenerdog

macrumors member
Dec 4, 2007
88
0
Here's my analysis ;)

Notebookcheck.com describes the 320m (apple's version) to be slightly faster than the 310m

In the 3d mark 05 test, these are the scores:

310m = 7149
9600m gt = 9592

So if the 320m is slightly faster than the 310m we could be looking at about 8000 as the result. Therefore it is very likely the 9600m gt will out perform this card... however, the 320M is much more energy efficient, so I think it's a welcome compromise really.

Then again I don't exactly need 10 hours of battery life... so apple could have gone with something a little more powerful.
 

warstomp

macrumors member
Oct 19, 2009
31
0
I'm running the SC2 beta on my 13' macbook pro right now with the 9600 and it runs perfectly fine id say its about middle of the line graphics, this keep in mind running a 21.5 external display on even on the 13' screen, in addition this is on a bootcamped windows 7. I really dont think you would have any problem with the graphics on SC2 with the now previous gen Macbook Pro's or the current ones.
 

sporadicMotion

macrumors 65816
Oct 18, 2008
1,110
17
Your girlfriends place
I'm running the SC2 beta on my 13' macbook pro right now with the 9600 and it runs perfectly fine id say its about middle of the line graphics, this keep in mind running a 21.5 external display on even on the 13' screen, in addition this is on a bootcamped windows 7. I really dont think you would have any problem with the graphics on SC2 with the now previous gen Macbook Pro's or the current ones.
psssst... if you have a 13" MBP then you have a 9400m...

That is good news for OP though... if SC2 runs on the 9400m, then it will definitely run on the 320m.
 

twitchtwice

macrumors member
Mar 19, 2010
81
0
Here's my analysis ;)

Notebookcheck.com describes the 320m (apple's version) to be slightly faster than the 310m

In the 3d mark 05 test, these are the scores:

310m = 7149
9600m gt = 9592

So if the 320m is slightly faster than the 310m we could be looking at about 8000 as the result. Therefore it is very likely the 9600m gt will out perform this card... however, the 320M is much more energy efficient, so I think it's a welcome compromise really.

Then again I don't exactly need 10 hours of battery life... so apple could have gone with something a little more powerful.
interesting result. i wonder what the 320m compares to the 8600gt that my old 2.4ghz 2007 model had. if the 320m has at least the same graphics i may pick up the 13 to save some money.
 

Cali3350

macrumors regular
Feb 16, 2009
249
0
Here's my analysis ;)

Notebookcheck.com describes the 320m (apple's version) to be slightly faster than the 310m

In the 3d mark 05 test, these are the scores:

310m = 7149
9600m gt = 9592

So if the 320m is slightly faster than the 310m we could be looking at about 8000 as the result. Therefore it is very likely the 9600m gt will out perform this card... however, the 320M is much more energy efficient, so I think it's a welcome compromise really.

Then again I don't exactly need 10 hours of battery life... so apple could have gone with something a little more powerful.
If the 320M does have 48 shader cores (which apple is implying but not actually stating) then it will be much higher in performance than the 310M (which has 16 shader cores).
 

Niiro13

macrumors 68000
Feb 12, 2008
1,717
0
Illinois
Wait, are we actually comparing an integrated graphics card with a card that has dedicated memory? :O

Anyway, I guess we can roughly estimate the gaming benchmarks? The 320M is supposedly 1.8X faster on Doom 3 than the 9400M. The 9400M got about 29 fps so that would mean that the 320M has 52.2 fps. 9600M GT got 104 fps for 512MB and 95.6 fps for 256MB.

Granted, these are rough estimates but ah well. We won't know until someone does real benchmarks.
 

weenerdog

macrumors member
Dec 4, 2007
88
0
If the 320M does have 48 shader cores (which apple is implying but not actually stating) then it will be much higher in performance than the 310M (which has 16 shader cores).
That's true, however, the 320m (apple's version) uses system memory (it's an integrated chipset) which will seriously degrade the performance... so despite the huge increase in shader cores their will not be a very substantial increase in performance. But... I'd be over the moon if Apple proved me wrong! ;)
 

Bobmarine

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Apr 13, 2010
3
0
I'm running the SC2 beta on my 13' macbook pro right now with the 9600 and it runs perfectly fine id say its about middle of the line graphics, this keep in mind running a 21.5 external display on even on the 13' screen, in addition this is on a bootcamped windows 7. I really dont think you would have any problem with the graphics on SC2 with the now previous gen Macbook Pro's or the current ones.
How does it look? Is medium graphics acceptable, or have you turned off all the effects and such? And, as it has already been said, I'm sure you mean 13" with the 9600, right?